I wasn't aware that there was such a thing as a "TrainingPeaks/TSS model" or approach to training. Maybe you can tell me what it is?

Others can weigh in on the nuances, but the TrainingPeaks Performance Management Chart is an implied model or approach, i.e. it maps training stress onto improved fitness using a fancy formula. I'm not in a position to gauge whether it adequately acknowledges the need for rest or the impact of recovery workouts, though. Hope this thread triggers a lively discussion of these topics!

Where are the hard sessions in the first graph?

My takeaway from this graphic (not from real life), would be if I train easy once per day, I will keep getting better forever, until I can crush Andy Potts.

Or that I can train really hard for 5 minutes 6 times a day (in picture 3), and keep getting better forever until I crush Andy Potts.

I know what it is/does (see my .sig). The mistake that Jordan is making is ass u me ing that it advocates a particular approach to training, when in point-of-fact it is agnostic to how you train.

And, just for the record, yes, I have ridden a fixed gear.

Yeah, I agree. Rappstar totally missed the mark on this one. TSS is scaled to volume and intensity. TP is a platform, and great one at that, but it's use alone is not going to decide what kind of adaptation come.

This could be a fun thread to watch...

I don't think that is what Jordan meant. I think he meant that the PMC chart should not be used as a surrogate for a well thought out, intentional, training plan.

Ooh, can I play the "guess what Jordan meant game". I'm guessing that what Jordan meant is that the TSS model tends to encourage CTL chasing since that is the primary metric of "fitness". Without guidance, it is fairly easy to "discover" that the best CTL chasing technique is to go high volume medium hard day after day since you can accumulate large TSS.

My criticism of Jordan's post is that while the info-graphic might be correct he didn't point me at anything to help me make a decision about whether it is. Show me the data please. I'm already inclined to believe that TSS is not the whole answer (certainly not for road racing where W' or its moral equivalent matters a _lot_).

The nuance in your summary is that "a lot of easy training" is probably not, in that context, 8-10 hours spread across 3 sports

If you're full time or have 20 hours a week and can do lots of LSD interspersed with hard efforts then that may well be ideal but I barely have half that time and spending it at low intensities with infrequent hard efforts is possibly not the best Utilisation of the limited time I have

That said, I'm more interested in consistency week to week at presenot and whatever allows me to achieve that

The problem is that what is "really" considered easy what is considered "hard". Maybe this is personal or maybe its not.

Swim: ????
Bike: Is easy less than 60% FTP, <65%, <70%? What is hard? >100% FTP
Run: HR based on LTHR or Max HR? Based on Threshold speed? What are these zones?

I think this is why a lot of athletes get it wrong because they think they are going easy when they are actually going too hard.

Except that that's not really true. That is, if you really want to rack up a lot of TSS points, you've got to cycle for many hours, which in and of itself limits the intensity.* In fact, many people complain that TSS provides too much credit for duration, and too little credit for intensity.

*Fig. 2 in this article shows this rather nicely: http://freewebs.com/...ynamics2/PerfMgr.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ0epRjfGLw

Although I agree with this chart, it only is very relevant for 0.5% of athletes.

Many people from my observations are not exercising twice a day, nor do many know how to even push themselves hard enough to reach the peaks in the top chart. Most triathletes would benefit from more sessions and going harder.

---

Strava

Hmm, perhaps I didn't express myself very well, I think your chart agrees with what I was saying. Suppose I am shooting for a CTL of 100 for some reason. It would be super hard to do that with 1hr a day (at least for me). But your chart shows nicely that I might do at at 2hrs at IF=.7, or maybe even 3 hrs at .6ish. Both of those seem quite achievable and what I was calling "medium hard" (e.g. IF<=.7) and "high volume". I was trying to say exactly what you mention as a complaint, that TSS credits duration so that if that is your only metric you will learn to favor duration over intensity.

Reminds me of the story of a friend who had a buddy that rode across America and was trash talking that since he rode 6+hrs a day he was going to crush everyone when he got back. The punchline was that he got really good at riding 6+hrs a day at a steady 15 mph, but got dropped by the local group rides when he got back.

I think the wildcard here is the running.

The sweet spot or even super high intensity on the bike and swim, you can handle a lot of and it seems athletes adapt (for that matter on XC skis too). The problem is when you overlay running on top of this.

What about doing a lot of intensity on the bike and swim, and use the third line in your graphic for the run training....just to a lot of low intensity, low volume frequent running and do all you intensity on the swim+bike. This model would likely suffice for 90% of age groupers who are never really running that fast in racing anyway....the fastest age group run pace is often from swim exit to bike start and every other step of running ends up being way slower (at least in half and full IM racing)

I'm confused: What does the dotted green squiggle represent?

IF <0.75 = recovery.

Here you have actual training.
Green=easy
Yellow=L3
Red=L4/5 and competitions

Well played.

---

--Chris

As a pure cyclist I've found TSS-based metrics to be near useless as an instantaneous snapshot of my current state. My subjective perception of "how fatigued am I?" seems to be far more accurate. Sometimes when it tells me I should be "fresh" I'm still deeply fatigued. Sometimes the inverse.

They are useful metrics for long-term planning. E.g. how does my training load in April compare to what it was in January?

In terms of the graphics, they give the false impression that the body responds to stress in a nice linear, predictable way. My body, apparently, didn't get that memo. Fitness improves in fits and starts.

Let me see if I can put the "criticism" another way. NP/TSS/CTL is a huge step forward; I've seen personally and for others that it comes as a bit of a revelation in terms of providing a metric for their cycling. The trap is that used naively, what you measure naturally becomes what you optimize, so I've seen a tendency for people (myself included) to tune their training toward higher TSS/CTL at the expense of training mix. If there is a training mix that an individual finds easier to achieve the same TSS, they will tend toward that even if it is not what would best achieve their training goal. Thus, the particulars of the measuring tool can accidentally shape the direction of training in sub-optimal ways. Addressing that shortcoming is a place where proper coaching, training plans, and/or the use of additional metrics that provide ways of measuring other dimensions of training can help add value.

Only a bad carpenter blames their tools.

That is a clever come back, but a crappy cop-out. I build "tools" myself in a professional context and know first hand that tools can be effective along some dimensions and poor along others. When a user says that the tool makes it too easy to shoot themselves in the foot, I don't just say "Don't point at your foot", I try to see if there are ways to improve it.

As far as I can tell (I still don't know what the dotted green squiggle is...) the diagram isn't about Training Peaks or TSS. It's about sweet spot vs. polarized training. Am I wrong?

On a side note the graph also implies that "greater accumulated fatigue" is a bad thing, sometimes it isn't. "too much" or "more than you can handle" is bad, "greater" is sometimes greater.

Once you have:

Frequency
Consistency
Volume

Then you have a certain amount of "more" freedom to manipulate intensity and modulation. Anyways I've been reminded on here before that there are, many paths to Rome, lots of ways to fry a fish or skin a cat…plenty of books in the library etc…I find it hard to believe or possibly understand that any one model could be "individually" predictive as the best or ultimate path to performance.

My 2c,
Maurice

As an aside, "A poor craftsman blames his tools" is the usual way you find that idiom, with the meaning that a poor craftsman will find a way to screw up regardless of the (high) quality of the tools. Adding "Only" gives the idiom a very different meaning and certainly not the standard one.

I've always heard it as, "a good craftsman never blames his tools." If you assume that craftspeople only come in two types - i.e., good or bad - that's the same as "only a poor craftsman blames his tools."

Google is your friend here. Try googling "blames his tools idiom", I think you will discover that the "good craftsman" version exists, but is not the standard version. I also hope that as a tool maker, you don't really think the quality of your tool has no impact on the quality of the result. That would be a pretty sad outlook for someone who has presumably spent a fair bit of effort trying to create a tool. Why not just keep using HR monitors if tools don't matter?

My experience has been that aerobic capacity and endurance can be built with some form of low intensity long slow distance work. It's best to try and have these workouts not interfere with your more intense fitness building exercises. "Fitness" for more athletic ends, is built best with intense workouts spaced out enough to recover properly.

I like to repeat the same fitness workouts over and over so that I can tell if I am getting better or not. Really, the fitness side all boils down to that curve -- baseline, training stimulus, recovery, new baseline. If your new baseline isn't getting better then you have two potential culprits: (1) your training isn't hard enough to provoke super-compensation or (2) you haven't recovered enough.

It gets to be a very simple test: am I getting stronger or not? Most people get functionally fixated on maximizing work load. If I lived through it then I must have recovered and gotten better, right?

I believe that I am just rephrasing what Rappstar said, but who knows.

Really good thoughts

You never fail to be inappropriately dogmatic in the face of a reasoned critique.

Pissing match between internet message boards experts & experts in real life.

There is expertise in the world of science and then there is competence in the realm of social tact. The science goes further with some tact.

I would have lost all semblance of tact if my science was bludgeoned continuously, & anonymously by message board superheroes.

Yes, I believe you based on your recent posts ;)

AC and I have had some positive interactions in the past and I hope will in the future. Obviously this particular exchange was not the most fruitful discussion (aside from learning about idioms). I do appreciate that he continues to come online and discuss things, but there is no doubt that he has a mixed record on taking discussions in productive directions. I think I may need to print a shirt that says "message board superhero". I'm not exactly anonymous though; anyone who wants to check out my background for credibility is free to do so.

Hold on now - how am I the one taking things in an unproductive direction? I don't recall accusing others of uncalled-for dogmatism or misuse of common idioms in this thread. All I have done is point out that 1) the assertion that chasing CTL automatically leads you into training a particular way is incorrect, and 2) that if people make the mistake of chasing CTL while ignoring training composition, you can't blame me and/or the PMC.

Only person who seems to be pissing in any direction is kileyay. jbanks and I may not be in complete agreement, but nothing really uncivil has been said by either of us.

Tone is hard to get on the internet, especially when trying to communicate in brief snippets. I suspect we would find each other funnier in person and I think we mostly see eye to eye on the training stuff as well. Somehow though we still have managed to mainly talk by each other. Could certainly be my fault, but it did seem like you misinterpreted what I said a few times in the thread. I'm not sure why you frame my comments as "blaming you and/or the PMC". I think it is an excellent tool that has limitations and in particular was pointing out an error mode that I've seen in the use of that tool. I'd be interested in your insight into how the tool might be improved to make that class of errors less likely, but your response seemed to imply that anyone who makes that error is a poor craftsman. I'd also be interested in hearing why what I implied is a limitation isn't actually a limitation if you think that is the case.

I don't mean to piss your way any further, but only now have you actually made the above points, and they are good ones! Before, you were just throwing smugness and idioms across the thread; now, you're being direct and assertive with your thoughts/comments. More of this, please

Sorry to derail the grumbling match between the toolmakers, but isn't this very similar to the polarized model of training?

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

i spend too much time looking at my TP charts. I really want to improve (as do we all I'm sure).

With a coach's help I will be peaking for IMTX with a CTL of 150. For faster athletes, that same 150 might put them in a position to KQ. For me, landing in the top 20% of 45-49 will be an achievement.
It seems to me that since TSS is a function of time and intensity relative to thresholds that what I really need are higher thresholds. MY 350TSS bike and the guy who will win my AG in May are very different. Then the same 150ctl will get me there. Put another way, in order to get faster, I need to get faster.
My hope is that by climbing the TSS mountain over and over across sessions that those thresholds will budge.

I guess you missed here:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5927435#p5927435

where I pointed out that TSS/the PMC are agnostic to how you train, and here:

http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...ost=5927663#p5927663

where I pointed out that anyone blindly chasing CTL has only themselves to blame.

That all sounds reasonable. But you're using TSS in a prescriptive rather than descriptive manner. Just doing a lot of TSS and then "hoping" that your threshold climbs may not be the best approach. Or it may be a good approach for a while, then lead to a plateau. I think Rappstar's point may be that you if you target a few really high quality workouts on a regular basis, and push them hard, your TSS will rise naturally with your fitness level. And you should be sure to recharge between those high quality workouts with lower-intensity (but still quality) workouts. And you get more continual feedback. If you track the same workout on a weekly or bi-weekly basis, you'll know right away if things are working. And the eventual threshold test will be more of confirmation of what you already know rather than a big suspenseful test.

Aren't we playing with two variables here? Seems to muddy the waters beyond any ability to inform if you ask me.

The limitations of TSS and the PMC are well-known - in fact, when I first introduced TSS back in 2003 (http://lists.topica.com/...ort=d&start=9353) I wrote:

" the basic premise – i.e., that you can adequately describe the training load and the stress it imposes on an individual based on just one number (TSS), completely ignoring how that “score” is achieved and other factors (e.g., diet, rest) – is, on its face, ridiculous. In particular, it must be recognized that just because, e.g., two different training programs produce the same weekly TSS total, doesn’t mean that an individual will respond in exactly the same way."

However, I would submit that this part has also proven true:

"Nonetheless, I believe that TSS (and IF) should prove useful to coaches and athletes for evaluating/managing training."

(Just look at how many programs have now copied my ideas.)

OTOH, if somebody chooses to ignore my writings, there isn't much I can do to help them...

Any thoughts on the term "alactic adaptation" or response?

If for the sake of argument we generalize the forum or thread to those who are looking to raise FTP or IM power is that really the goal?

Honest question,
Maurice

Yeah there is, rewrite that TSS formula to stop awarding "points" where folks have no business training.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

that's really good stuff, thanks for sharing.

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Wow. This generated a lot of good discussion. Anyway, I'd say this was the post that I'd most wished I'd summarized in my own original post.

In economic terms, people respond to incentives, and if you express the idea that CTL is basically proxy for "fitness," then obvious people will seek to maximize CTL.

I would say that my objection to this is really confined to triathlon. I think the concept of, especially, sTSS (swim TSS) is incredibly malformed. rTss (run TSS) is also pretty bad, though it's more/less bad depending on terrain. So in that sense, I would say that I do actually say that TrainingPeaks does, to a certain extent, guide people towards training in a certain way, and one that is not particularly well grounded in reality WHEN IT COMES TO TRIATHLON.

In that sense, I think the extension of the concept of TSS away from a strict powermeter-based concept was a mistake. And perhaps a disservice to athletes...

That said, I found the graph to be interesting. I found the discussion it generated to be even more interesting. As always, I appreciate Dr. Coggan chiming in. I have seen tremendous value in many of Dr. Coggan's cycling-related metrics. The extrapolation of those metrics - or, really, of the concept of a numerical TSS value based around a "threshold pace" value - to swimming and running, in practical every day terms, is something that I disagree with.

Anyway, did not expect to see almost 50 replies at the end of the day. Thanks to many of you for also giving me some good stuff to think about.

To continue to discuss, one thing that I've been toying with has been ignoring CTL and instead looking solely at the slope of CTL over given periods of time. The idea being that your body responds to change. So the slope of the CTL curve matters more than its absolute value. This was/is reinforced by the paper modeling injury risk as a function of ATL/CTL. A ratio of ATL/CTL of >1.5 seems to dramatically increase risk of injury. http://bjsm.bmj.com/...rts-2015-095788.full

What's interesting is that Paulo has been able to replicate these findings with his athletes, only Paulo uses longitudinal RPE tracking (with a separate constant for each sport). So he tracks A*RPE*duration where A is a constant that varies by sport. And that gives him a training load score for that workout. He then tracks that over time, using some basic math - similar, I believe, to Dr. Coggan - to represent ATL as roughly 7-day load and CTL to be 6 weeks plus.

I'd say that looking for a slight - but positive - slope to your CTL curve is more important than the actual value of CTL. I think that's the sort of thing that TrainingPeaks could offer more of and that might encourage more intelligent training.

I haven't yet played with it, but given that I've found value in the derivative of CTL - slope, I'm not curious if you could look at "fitness" (loaded term) by examining the area under the CTL curve - the integral of CTL - over varying periods of time.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I guess you get points for diversity in your twitter feed for following a self-promoter high performance guru like Mike Young. Filliol must be proud.
But get give credit where it belongs, the graphic was by Derek Hansen of strengthpowerspeed.com, a Charlie Francis protege. Easily visible in the bottom right hand corner.

I may get flamed for this, especially by Dr. Coggan, but I think looking at the slope of CTL invites the same type of misuse of these metrics described by jbank with respect to absolute CTL. The 'idea' behind your hypothesis is that the body responds to change, but it doesn't necessarily respond to volume changes (as quantified by TSS-based metrics) on a relative basis either. It is entirely plausible--although I don't necessarily expect Dr. Coggan to agree with me on this extreme case--for an athlete to spend 6 months increasing CTL, increasing CTL slope, and actually getting no faster at all (as measured by threshold). This function would look something like this:



The "no faster at all" bit is the blue line, the athlete's FT. Your underlying "idea"--that the body responds to change--is a good one. But what type of change? CTL change? No, not necessarily.

Everyone has said that these are valuable tools to help manage training, and of course they are...we can thank Dr. Coggan for that. But my ongoing challenge to him is basically as follows:

If we agree that there are covariates here that are extremely important, what are they and how important are they? Maybe this exists somewhere and has been done and I just haven't really seen it, but what sort of impact would there be in this equation if we incorporated training mix composition correlates? Could we evaluate the efficacy of these metrics with respect to FTP improvement, irrespective of CTL, or CTL change? Aren't there perhaps variables/metrics that are just as vital, or more vital in some cases, to the ultimate end goal, which is increasing functional threshold? Can the science/math figure out a way to better incorporate them into our analysis?

P.S. I am primarily talking about cycling, mainly because I find the TP bastardized metrics of rTSS to be absolute garbage, especially for my training (trails, hills, etc.). Clearly this all becomes much more complicated when you incorporate running into the equation.

As I pointed out to UK Sport when they had me over to talk as part of their build-up to the London Olympics, I don't think that there is a lot to be gained by trying to improve the input function - it is the model structure itself that is the greatest limitation.

Also I have pointed out before, it is the above conclusion that started people on the path that eventually led to WKO4...

I would tend to agree, which is why when I introduced the PMC (http://home.trainingpeaks.com/...-performance-manager) I wrote things like:

"CTL is a relative indicator of changes in performance ability due to changes in fitness, not an absolute predictor"

"within the logical constructs of the Performance Manager, performance depends not only on TSB, but also on CTL (in keeping with saying that “form equals fitness plus freshness”). The “art” in applying the Performance Manager therefore lies in determining the precise combination of TSB and CTL that results in maximum performance. "

"in the Performance Manager concept, an individual’s CTL (and the “composition” of the training resulting in that CTL – see more below) determines their performance potential (at least within limits), but their TSB influences their ability to fully express that potential."


Despite some people seeming to have suddenly discovered the idea, the notion that the rate of change in training load is indicative of both training risk and training reward has been around as long as the PMC has...longer, in fact (e.g., the 10% rule for runners).

I also find it amusing how much attention Gabbett has received for simply "dumbing down" my already "dumbed down" (by necessity) version of Banister's impulse-response model. Kudos to him, however, for applying the concepts of CTL, ATL, and ramp rate to other sports.


As I said above, there is really nothing new in this - in particular, Carl Foster first came up with "session RPE" as a simplified way of scoring training, and I have repeatedly suggested that people may wish to apply it to triathlon or team sports, e.g., soccer.

Perhaps some day I'll have a job where I can justify spending time working on such things (hint, hint). Until then, I will just have to continue to contemplate them as a hobby. (Note that I first pointed out the distinction between modeling stress and modeling adaptation on the wattage list almost 10 y ago. At the time I also pointed out what shape I thought an aerobic training adaptation score should have.)

Just an FYI: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19910822

I haven't read the full study, and would probably not understand half of it. I would - however - add that from my perspective (probably as a typicak WKO/TP-user: amateur self-coached) the problem with PCM in a triathlon-perspective is that the rTSS-metric rareley hits the mark estimating the real stress of a run-workout. Workouts on the bike measured with a PM are spot on - the NP from a ride with my PM correlates very well with the actual stress from the workout in question. For cycling the TSS/PCM is an easy-to-use tool (and quite understandable, if aware of the limitations that have been underlined numerous times above).

When it comes to running, my subjective experience is this:

1.
The NGP-metric is nowhere near as usefull/accurate as NP. In other words - when TP is trying to account for terrain etc affecting how stressfull a run is, it often misses the mark. The problem increases the more difficult the terrain is, and when f.ex. running mountain/trails the metric can be disregarded completly. F.ex when running a mountainous trail my HR can go through the roof and I do a super-hard 1.5hr run. NGP from the session is - however - still very low. I guess this is mostly because the rTSS - metric is not designed to monitor this type of runs. If there existed a PM for running that was as scientifically exact as PM's for running, I guess this problem could be eliminated (but lets not steer this thread over to a Stryd-debate!)

2.
I guess if purely running flat/track, the rTSS is an accurate/usefull metric. If only running this kind of terrain, I feel the PCM/TSS to some extent gives a good reflection of ATL vs CTL/fatigue. However, where I live, its hard to come by a route that would give me anything less than 200+metres of elevation gain/loss pr 10k of running. This often skews NGP to much, IMO. To be precise - i feel the NPG-metric hits the mark much better going uphill than downhill. The strain of going downhill is not that much less than flat - especiallyif it gets too steep downhill (an extreme example to make my point: most my runs start with a descent going down at 10% grade. When running down this at 4 min/km pace, TP works this out to equal NGP 10 min/km. I'd argue that does not quite hit the mark)

3.
I still find it difficult to combine cycling and running TSS in one PCM, and get usefull information out of the combined CTL/ATL-numbers. This is the part where it gets to scientific for my level of understanding, but I feel that some parts of the fatigue is "sport-specific" and some fatigue carries over from running to cycling or vica-versa. My subjective feeling of fatigue across sports is also grossly affected by my fitness in that particular sport (not surprising!). IOW - if I have laid of cycling for a month, starting to train both cycling and running again will leave me more fatigued than if my body is used to the "combined" load of two sports. The fists cycling-session will "hurt" my later running sessions alot more than if I had better cycling-fitness to begin with. This applies even if I account for the fact that I have to adjust f.ex. my cycling FTP as a result of lost cycling fitness during the off-period (iow - the increased fatigue is not a result of me trying to hold training levels that are out of date due to lost fitness).

In short my take-away from this is that the PCM is a great tool for cycling, and probably also for running if only running flat (if running hilly terrain it would be better to substitute the rTSS with a number based on HR/percieved exertion).

For the two sports combined, I'm unsure of how usefull the numbers are. In any case I would argue one needs alot deeper insight into training/physiology etc to get the same use of PCM for running and cycling combined, than just for one sport. I should also add - I use WKO/PCM and am happy with it. Its nice for tracking training-load in the longer term (i.e. how much did i train this winter vs last winter).

I'll leave the swimming sTSS to someone else. I dont even float!

This was my thought as well, and when it comes to training stress and response the funny thing is that it is both simple and complex. The simple aspect is that your body is remarkable at adapting to what you ask of it. Want to more performance doing x (where this is something like sprinting, pursuit, TT or endurance), then do more x and be mindful of recovery and diet. It is like magic and is just plain works, until it doesn't. Everyone who has been doing this a while knows the feeling of the plateau, so in order to break through you need to create more intense training stress and mind recovery even more.

If there is any lesson about the chart it would be that time in the middle zone won't along get you to your peak ability. I take issue with the chart implying that methods 1 & 3 yield infinite and ever upward progress because they all contribute to fitness. In my observation the first chart represents what fit people need to do to keep making gains.

While I respect your knowledge on this sport I don't see how this chart can be used for anyone that is not training to their maximum potential or ability. Recognizing fatigue is individual, this chart just puts down an approach to training but doesn't say how to know if fatigue is overlapping.

I see the TSS score as being a way to quantifying training stress but that doesn't mean that higher or a steeper ramp rate is better for any one person. Blaming someone's failures on their limited understanding of TSS is like blaming 7 for being greater than 6.

So the question is, why are you attempting to do something that I have repeatedly warned people against? :)

I don't blame 7 for being greater than 6, but I do understand why 6 is afraid of 7. ;)

I noticed that triathletes are now chasing higher CTL numbers like chasing higher run mileage for a pure runner. This leads to burn out, injury, etc. A good example is that I've seen athletes run on treadmill at 0% slope instead of the road or higher slope to get a higher rTSS. The only real way to test fitness for swimming/running is to test. If after two or three tests, you should be getting faster if you are training right.

I was wondering if someone was going to bite on that :)

Yes, I do think some people game the numbers and doing that on a treadmill is a way to do it.

Yes, I feel testing on the road (or Pool) is a very good way to see if you are improving.

Personally I've changed my training this season because I hadn't seen much improvement last year. Now it could be that I'm fairly close to my limit or that the stress was too much for me, I'm not getting any younger and it appears I'm starting to need more recovery. Since I've gone back to self coaching I haven't given myself the ups and downs like I did when I was with Mike P. Right now I'm looking for the best results, if that means a lower CTS then that's what I'll do.

I saw what you did there.

Thanks. I should have just cut-n-pasted the contents of Mike's tweet since he credited Derek in it. Apologies.

Joel follows lots of people he disagrees with or otherwise doesn't necessarily see eye-to-eye with. what matters, and we've had this discussion, is can you learn something. A lot of what Mike posts I disregard. But he does also post things that I have found interesting. Like this.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

 

TrainingPeaks does like to default to showing multiple sports in their PMC chart. I have to change that back regularly on the website. :/

nice graph thanks for sharing.
since you talk about paulo, i think in this podacst they talked aobut that, he said that for running he preferes an more sweatspot approach.

I am sure Jordan will speak for himself here, however I will just sum up what I took from his post. I agree with his assessment to a great degree.
Your TSS/CTL model serves single sport, cycling very well. I agree that carrying your concept into swimming and running clearly skews both metrics to the low side of things. I am not going to argue here why I think that, I can start with swim TSS being bogus entirely, I can say that NGP is inaccurate at best as it never accounts for winds, ie, pace is not a metric like power that does not depend on winds..........let alone GPS watches that do not have baro altimeter input......so elevation gains are inaccurate (yes I know about the normalizing that with a button in TP)....
Further, your TSS model is skewed far more toward the duration than it is to intensity, ie. short course triathlon training has very little value with that model. That is your explanation of the algorithm used in calculating TSS.....
On top of all of that, triathletes have no capacity to test all three sports T-pace, FTP and Threshold pace respectively to keep the TSS/CTL semi accurate.....Not like cycling and cyclist that can use all the methods you describe to arrive at FTP estimates. Most athletes rarely do all out efforts for 20min or longer when IM training at 20-24hrs per week in our amateur world. Not enough time to recover.
Yeah I know everybody is using some kind of estimate, but your model depends on accuracy of benchmarks. We all know that FTP changes daily based on your recovery.....
There you have it.

I think this is a nice example of why I said I think there's a "TrainingPeaks/TSS model." Dr. Coggan explicitly says he doesn't recommend combining these numbers, and yet the primary default graph on the website and on the mobile app is exactly that. And on the mobile app, there's no way to change it. And the app, each day, displays combined CTL/ATL/TSB. And you cannot turn that off.

If you are going - as TrainingPeaks has done - to dictate that CTL/ATL/TSB, as calculated - and combined - by their metrics, MUST be displayed (at least on the mobile app), then I think that's not exactly being "agnostic" as to how people train...

@pk - Yes. Paulo - and Joel too - both advocate more "sweet spot" training on running. But that's at least in part because the risk of injury goes up substantially with max and supra-max type training when running. But Paulo is also a big fan of hills - as is Joel - which is one way to introduce additional load for a given speed...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Just an FYI: typical ground-level winds have very limited impact on the energy cost of running.

You are conflating two things here, i.e., 1) the tendency of some to chase CTL without regard to training composition, and 2) the desire of many triathletes (served by TrainingPeaks) to add TSS, rTSS, and sTSS to arrive at an overall measure of their training load. It was the former to which I was referring when I said the approach is agnostic (although note that I don't recommend that people do either #1 or #2, and never have).

This formula has been successful

Probably because if the PCM were a hammer, I´d assume I can use it to bang in both nails and screws! :)

For me this is not any critique of TSS/PCM itself - the tool is what it is and I´ve never seen anyone claim that it can do something it can´t. The issue - again from my perspective - is that when training multisport it´s harder to measure total training load no matter how you try to express it (be it TSS, RPE or any other metric). I think that leaves us (at least me) towards a tendancy to train more "in the middle" than what is perhaps appropriate. I.e - havent had any quality runs this week and do one even though I´m a bit fatigued from cycling. End up doing a half-ass quality run because I can´t really muster the strenght to go all out for one quality run. For us mere amateurs - adding more volume could trend away from polarization when more polarization could be (and this is where the qualified people should chime in...) the correct answer.

 
The issue - again from my perspective - is that when training multisport it´s harder to measure total training load no matter how you try to express it (be it TSS, RPE or any other metric). I think that leaves us (at least me) towards a tendency to train more "in the middle" than what is perhaps appropriate.



I totally agree. I've been on TP for about 18 months now so I've got lots of data to look at and see how I performed relative to the build and taper. It's a fantastic tool and I kick myself for not jumping on it earlier. I train with power and HR.


However, I've noticed a few things that skew my data, and as a result, TSS, CTL, etc. I make an effort to watch my mix. For example:


- Lots trail running underestimates my rTSS, especially long and technical runs on the trails. Hill repeats and hilly routes too.

- Treadmill workouts when using less than 2% grade and track workouts overestimate my rTSS.


- Road bike versus Tri bike power. A watt is not a watt for me. A 300W effort on the road bike hurts less and has less load than 300W in aero on the tri bike. My FTP is the same so TP does not care which bike I was on that day.

All good points trail.cguess I should keep my day job, let my coach coach and just keep doing the work. :)

I like how this is broken down, which may be "too simplified for most triathletes", but overall it does the trick. If you take into account your perceived exertion on key interval sets, some testing in the pool, track and trainer and race results you pretty well have most of what you need. But I think the 60-80% HR is too wide a range. I'd like to see a bit more granularity on what is 70-80% and what is sub 70 percent.

Thanks for posting both graphs in this thread. Too much common sense in those though. Also keep in mind that skier spend a lot of time in the summer running, so their training distribution would be more like a duathlete than a triathlete who has the non weight bearing aspect of swimming to pile on a bit more intensity with less of a recovery penalty. My guess is that the skiers can handle much more intensity once they are on snow than during the summer (at which point their total intensity in training would become very much like ITU guys)

Just look at your hours each of swim, bike and run. Next look at your mileage in running and in the pool along with your TSS for the bike. You don't need to roll it up into a single metric. Then look at how you are feeling and performance in key workout and races. This should tell you all you need to know. Why do you want a single metric that rolls it up. You don't need that. If you do the above you can get a very accurate snapshot in approximately 2 minutes. I need Fleck here to tell you guys to stop overthinking it.

In general the Norwegian skiers have the same numbers of intervals year around (except from right after the season is over).
Best way to show this is from Stephen Seiler's video
Go to 15 minutes

you really need to meet more triathletes. That's ALL they do. :-p

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

Maybe this is an oversimplification? But the take away I see in the graphic is the circles are of equal diameter to the period of the wave. If the circles overlap, you have not recovered and the accumulation of fatigue will have detrimental impact on the form. This is also shown with proper analysis ofthe PMC graphs... Maybe another way to explain effort, fatigue, etc.

I'd say I wasn't conflating two things; I was discussing two things under the same general concept, which is that ANY model is going to be biased to overvalue certain behaviors and undervalue others. That, in turn, necessarily influences the inputs which the model receives. If it didn't, then the model would be of no actual use. This has received - I think - the most extensive research (models influencing themselves) in finance, where of course the models are generally designed to be autonomous.

Anyway, thought this was pertinent, from the quite well known paper by Robert Merton on financial models for HBS:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/...s%20in%20finance.pdf

I suppose that I'd echo MarkyV's sentiment that ALL triathletes are pretty extreme. Or, at least I guess I'd say, anyone diligent enough to attempt to make use of an advanced model like the PMC is also then probably precisely the type of person who will then be influenced by such a model's output. I realize this ventures into social science quite a bit, but I think - again, looking at finance (Robert Shiller's classic "Animal Spirits" is as applicable to training as economics, IMO) for precedence, I think that's not at all unreasonable...

So, if you want to say that I've conflated them, go ahead (not that you need my permission). But I'd contend that they are not things to be conflated. They are just different facets of the exact same issue... The same people who will chase CTL are also the same people who desire to merge sTSS/bTSS/rTSS in order to arrive at an overall measure of their training load. It is - generally speaking - the same thing driving behavior in both cases. I'm actually surprised that you don't seem to view those as being pretty much intrinsically related problems...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

devashish_paul wrote:

Just look at your hours each of swim, bike and run. Next look at your mileage in running and in the pool along with your TSS for the bike. You don't need to roll it up into a single metric. Then look at how you are feeling and performance in key workout and races. This should tell you all you need to know. Why do you want a single metric that rolls it up. You don't need that. If you do the above you can get a very accurate snapshot in approximately 2 minutes. I need Fleck here to tell you guys to stop overthinking it.

Quoted for sensibleness.

That said, there is a single metric for me which is the perfect, optimal measure of how well my training is going. I call it "The Wife Aggression Threshold".

(1) The wife is generally happy, quite pleased that I did the gardening and I get the odd kiss and cuddle. Probability of having a fumble between the sheets is pretty good (meaning about 20%). She laughs at my jokes and appreciates how hard I work in my job, and the contribution I make to family life at home.
(2) I'm getting the odd sideways look. Passive aggressiveness creeping in, eg "you going on your bike tonight? Oh, ok then. I've just got all this ironing to do, see you in a bit". Jokes are being met by blank stares and if I get a kiss it is more likely to be on my cheek and a little bit like the ones I used to get from my auntie. Fumble between the sheets probability is low, trending towards zero. No open criticism yet, but there is a tangible threat of danger in the air.
(3) Constant, undiluted rage. She hates my bike, my hobby, the amount of laundry I create, and I do NOTHING to help around here. Violence likely. The fumble probability is high again, just not with me. No amounts of gardening or her favourite risotto will get me out of this.

I try and work a polarized model of about 80% (1) and varying the remaining 20% between (2) and (3) depending on where I am in the mesocycle. During base it is mainly (2)s but I try and bring in more (3)s during build. I move out the house when I'm peaking for my 'A' race.

I'm happy for folk to adopt this model, it works really well and is a good indicator of performance. But just remember that this is only a tool, and to use it properly you need a good coach.

(edited to take out the swear word as I gather it is a bit naughty in the US...sorry!)

Nice! Do you have a "WAT" chart? If so, is it for sale?

That is very true. However without overthinking 95% of the business-model geared towards AG athletes goes away! :-) (Do I need a new bike? How much faster will I be with a disc? Will the new Garmin-GPS make me faster?)

On a more serious note I agree - and once you cut away all the technology and apps it's quite easy to measure fatige - just walk up a flight of stairs and pay attention to if/how much your legs burn :) I dont really have a need to quantify everything in a single metric, ref the discussion on PCM/TSS. The discussion - however - comes from the part of my (our/triathletes?) brain that wants to analyze everything and express it in a chart! (which is a neat thing - untill the inevitable overthinker comes along!)

I've never known a new cyclist who didn't get overly fixated on clocking miles or besting their time on their favorite loop. Some never get past that. Is it motivating? You bet. Do they improve? Sure. Is it necessarily the best way to train? Not at all.

Most discussions I have about training get bogged down with the metrics of measuring it rather than exploring the actual methods involved. That's a shame.

So far neither TSB, CTL, ATL or any other measure accurately reflect the three times I get up each night to feed the baby or deal with my 2 year old who thinks 4.45 is porridge time. No measure really captures how completely wrecked I can feel day to day

If perhaps it could be updated to account for the baby factor and encompass all other things that might make it tired it might useful as a single metric ;)

Sounds like a potential development for Knighty76's WAT above.

Guys before we let the acronym "WAT" settle in, can we please note that I intentionally put the word "The" in the speechmarks too...

Ok, I'll say it. "TWAT"

No, you were conflating things.

Specifically, the fact that people want to add TSS, rTSS, and sTSS and TrainingPeaks allows you to do it has nothing to do with my comment that the PMC is "agnostic" to how you train. Yet, you offered it as a counter-argument.

I'd say that we have differing opinions about the meaning of the word "agnostic" then. I would say that it is absolutely not agnostic if TrainingPeaks says TSS=sTSS+bTSS+rTSS.

You have said that you do not encourage people to do that. Is that because you do not *believe* it to be true that you can represent total training stress in a simple, additive way using single activity stress scores from different sports?

By combining various training stress scores into a single one, TrainingPeaks is - whether tacitly or explicitly (I'd say it's solely a matter of opinion on which it is) - clearly stating that they *believe* that to be true.

I'm emphasizing the use of the word "believe" here because I think that runs pretty counter to your claim of "agnosticism." This isn't algebra. TSS=sTSS+bTSS+rTSS is not simple algebra. It is a belief in something which is unproven and which is largely a matter of faith. Ergo, TrainingPeaks is not agnostic. At least according to what I accept as the definition of agnostic, "(in a nonreligious context) having a doubtful or noncommittal attitude toward something."

Even with regards to a single sport, TrainingPeaks gives absolutely no weight to time between multiple workouts in a given day.

When it comes to training load response, the idea that A+B=C is not "agnostic." And yet that is exactly what the PMC says. Doesn't matter what your workouts are, how many there are in a day, etc, etc. You can simply add the numbers together. And again, it's not just that TP allows this. It's that this is the default, with absolutely no way to change it in certain settings (eg, the mobile app).

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Isn't that what sweet spot training is all about? Squeezing in as much training stress as possible? Certainly that's how everyone talks about it...

Your original post was clearly based on the mistaken belief that TSS/the PMC favors/encourages/rewards a less "polarized" approach to training. This has nothing to do with the fact that TSS, rTSS, and sTSS are not additive.

It has a lot to do with it given that my original post was focused on the limitations of the TSS-model/PMC for triathletes, who are the target audience of this forum.


Implicit - to me, anyway, and, based off how I read several of the replies in this thread - is the acknowledgement that - by default and with no way of changing it in certain settings (mobile) - the PMC presents you with a composite score for CTL/TSS/ATL/TSB.

That composite score (as well as both the swim and run scores) tends to reward a less polarized approach to training in my opinion for two reasons:
1) it says that TSS is simply additive across sports, which rewards "middle" work.
AND
2) it does an especially shitty job of calculating TSS for swim and run. And it does so in a way that rewards "middle" work.

The combination of these two factors is complementary in a negative way.

The example of the problems that rTSS has with hills is a prime example of this. Hill training is a prime example of how runners incorporate polarized training into their schedules. And the rTSS model does a shitty job of accounting for this. It does an even shittier job of accounting for this for triathletes, because it doesn't calculate the impact of swim/bike training on the hill workouts and vice versa.

Your early replies were exclusively focused on bike TSS as evidence that TSS was agnostic. But my original post was not about bike TSS. Your post showing that TSS rewards volume over intensity was based on a paper written by a cyclist. About bike training. Only.

Both sTSS and rTSS are based around a "threshold pace" value. That model - based off my own experience and the experience of numerous other posters - is absolutely not agnostic as to how you train. And the model for triathletes is simply additive, again not agnostic as to how you train. As several people pointed out, rTSS is especially inaccurate on a treadmill and can be "gamed" by setting incline at 0% instead of 1%.

Continually citing the effectiveness and limitations of the TSS model for cyclists does nothing to address its limitations for triathletes. The subject of my original post.

So, yes, the fact that TSS, rTSS, and sTSS are not additive has a lot to do with the fact that the PMC encourages a less polarized approach to TRIATHLON training.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

You wrote:Hill training is a prime example of how runners incorporate polarized training into their schedules.

Can you explain what you mean with incorporate polarized training?

With stock market earnings season in full swing I was thinking about this concept of rolling things up in a single metric. There is a reason in a the stock market that we have a variety of metrics to evaluate company performance by and they all have value depending on what you are trying to glean about the health of a company. Individual metrics on their own may tell you nothing if you are mid term vs long term investor vs a supercomputer trying to squeeze out as much as you can from a stock in the next 20 minutes. If you want the next 20 min performance who cares about the longer term metrics. The investor has to do what they want with the metrics depending on what type of investor they are. Same with coach and athlete and the metrics floating around....use them to one's advantage. Realistically endurance sport is pretty simple.

If it was really complex guys like Mark Allen and Dave Scott who had none of today's tools would have gone 8:0x in Kona. Watch those two guys pacing the first miles in Alii from the Kona 1989 videos. The pacing is much better than when Crowie set the new Kona record in 2011. Ralaert headed out at 2:32 marathon pace and I said it right at that instant that he was clueless and no one has ever run that fast and he did not need to run that fast that early if he wanted to catch Crowie. But he did. Why I don't know. Dave and Mark had things dialed in with fairly rudimentary metrics. They both ran faster in Kona in 89 than Crowie and Ralaert did in 2011.

Make sure there is a patent filed at the USPO on this before it gets out into the public domain and becomes freeware!!!

One of challenge with sports with large skill/technique components - like swimming and running and (I'm *guessing*) cross country skiing - is how do you generate intensity of adequate quality when you are very fatigued because it becomes harder to maintain technique, which then inherently limits speed.

In swimming, using resistance tools - like a parachute or a band - is a simple way to allow you to find more load at a slower speed, which requires less coordination.

In running, the most common way to do this is to run uphill as opposed to running on the flats. Running uphill, it's a higher load for a given speed, so you can run slower and still get much of the stimulus of at a faster pace.

As a result of this, you are able to keep the quality of your high quality training appropriately high.

Polarized training means, roughly, a lot of very easy training and a little bit of very hard training. It's easy, as you get tired, for the very hard training to become less hard because of neural fatigue. If you can mitigate the neural role a bit - through things like hills - it's easier to keep the hard part of your training appropriately hard.

Put more simply, running hills hard is easier than running flats hard when you are tired. And therefore, it becomes a good way to keep the distribution of your training load appropriately polarized over long training cycles.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

OK, I got confused about the term incorporating.
In xc-skiing you mostly do all the intervals uphill.
Typical intervals are 5x5 minutes moose hoofing, or on rollerskis, short rest.
In the winter time all intervals are on skis.

You train in two effort levels, talking speed = easy workout or intervals (L4)

I used the term "incorporating" because based on my (admittedly quite limited) understanding/experience, polarization is not used all the time for quite a lot of elite runners; there's a lot of pace-specific training, especially as you get closer to races. And there's also a lot of "nothing but easy" training. But it was maybe more confusing than less, and I should have just said, "...polarize their training..." or "maintain appropriate polarization in their training" or something like that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

You can keep trying to twist things around, but the fact remains that the PMC doesn't care how you train; it is just a reflection of your daily TSS scores. The latter, in turn, rewards duration more than intensity, at least once you take into consideration what is actually humanly possible (e.g., good luck achieving a CTL of 100 TSS/d on only 30 min/d). The latter is true not only for the original TSS, but also its imitators, i.e., rTSS and sTSS. Thus, to the extent that individuals might be incentivized to chase CTL at the expense of anything else, it would tend to discourage doing lots of middle-intensity work, and instead reward those who are willing to train at an easy-to-moderate intensity for multiple hours per day.

So, to summarize:
1) PMC doesn't care how you train
2) but it rewards duration over intensity
3) and CTL is maximized by a large volume of easy-to-moderate intensity work

I'm not sure how you reconcile 1 with 2 & 3. And how you reconcile 2 & 3 with the idea that the PMC doesn't discourage polarized training... But I suspect at this point we're just talking past each other.

As always, I appreciate your replies and insights and willingness to share. This thread was richer because of it.

We're absolutely in agreement that chasing CTL to the exclusion of other inputs is a negative. And that merging TSS across sports is not recommended. So I think we agree on more than we disagree...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Hi Jordan - just to clarify, the infographic was made by Derek Hansen, the head of strength and conditioning at Simon Fraser University.
http://www.strengthpowerspeed.com/

He runs a world-class program here and our athletic department is lucky to have his services.

Dave Clarke

Dr. Coggan thank you for your work and presence on slowtwitch.

The most useful tool that I use is intensity factor IF. It helps me to avoid overtraining. I used to just do hard workouts to the point of injury or burnout. I still find it hard to back down after a really good workout yet IF helps a great deal.

I could critique as others have done but to what point. It's not possible for a tool to take in all the individual variations out there. A good or bad swimmer could disagree on the points given. Same with a good or a bad Runner.

Reading the critiques of others has really led me to the conclusion that they have figured it out how to modify it for themselves. However if trainingpeaks modified it for one group another group could easily complain.

Thank you for giving us something to work with.

---

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.

Because CTL was never intended to reflect actual useable fitness, or specific fitness. It's purpose is to estimate your level of recovery and your level of fatigue. It does reflect training load in general and tells you how much overall equivalent aerobic work your doing how many "matches" your burning in a relative manner. But it always need to be considered in context.

Chasing CTL should never be a focus of training. But it's a nice "carrot" for those of us with full time jobs, side jobs and families also grinding out long training hours. You need all the motivation your can get sometimes. Again, I tend to pay the most attention to ramp rates and managing recovery. Having a higher CTL means that a race of a given TSS should require less recovery and it provides a bigger cushion for a "soft landing" when tapering. OR getting more rested without givign up as much total fitness.

But specific physiological adaptations don't not precisely follow the CTL curve. That should be understood. Further, each person will not adapt or respond the same to training load as another.

---

TrainingBible Coaching
http://www.trainingbible.com

As I said, the PMC doesn't care how you train. If, however, you use TSS as the input function, then CTL can be maximized by doing large amounts of easy-to-moderate intensity training. That same training still leaves room to spice things up with the occasional hard workout or race, especially if you recognize the 100-150 TSS/d "optimal" guideline.*

*Note that I offered this guideline in the early days of the PMC. It has stood the test of time quite well, but if I had a do-over I'd probably lower it a bit, i.e., to 90-140 TSS/d.

The only context that I have to this infographic is what I see for myself here, but I think that we may be missing something very important here as we try to apply this to cycling and/or triathlon. This thread seems to assume that high, medium, and low applies to endurance training intensity versus high, medium, low intensity of all types of work/exercise. That is, high is HIIT, medium is sweet sport, and low is long easy training. Now, throw true strength training into the continuum of intensity and a different perspective may develop. Sweet spot training (and probably even HIIT) likely falls into the Low category. Otherwise, if we do apply the high/medium/low continuum to endurance training by itself, then I would highlight that seminal work of Hickson and Holloszy show clear and profound aerobic adaptations with Medium/High training.

The original tweet by Mike credited Derek; I should have just posted the tweet. That said, I didn't realize that he is head of S&C at SFU. That's my lovely wife's alma mater!

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

How many athletes have their FTP overstated in TP , essentially understating TSS/CTL ?

FTP is not a fixed number. So I think, perhaps, the bigger question is how many athletes have their FTP (or threshold paces for swim/run) set appropriately at any given moment in time?

Speaking for myself, I don't ever really change these numbers. Because I don't think that setting them makes a huge difference in terms of practical usability. The model has lots of flaws - some active decisions; some limitations of a particular approach (the inherent limitations of NGP, for example); some just factors related to practicality and/or feasibility and/or state of knowledge (e.g. ignoring thermal load, cadence, and other things that we know affect performance).

To be clear, I have derived some value from use of the PMC, both single sport and combined. It's just data. I think it has problems, yes. But that doesn't mean I think it has no benefit.

I would most like to see TP include an option for RPE, since I think that would add a lot. But I'm able to "track" that effectively enough by simply communicating on a regular basis with my coach.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

No idea in TrainingPeaks, but it's not uncommon even among WKO4 users, whom you would assume are a bit more sophisticated. In fact, we even have a term for it: "vanity FTP."

That's one of the benefits of implementing the P-D model, i.e., it provides an independent, objective estimate of FTP. It's not a perfect approach (primarily due to limitations of the raw data), which is why the program doesn't automatically push mFTP to sFTP, but it does provide a useful reference point.

great stuff and that adds to the discusion whats really important.

I think the problem is that what you say is quite right but the problem is most people dont really understand how to use what you do.
and fall for what rappster very well describes .
I do think its more the usesrs, fault but I guess you have to find better ways to make lay people to understand what they do.
if what you call more sophisitced wko4 users dont get it as you say than you need to adress that .
at the same time as you say the old system to use rpe smartly is still a good one and while not new in the "power time" many peolple have forgotten it .

---

Friel wrote a blog about estimating TSS including a chart which correlates his zones as well as the 10 point Borg RPE scale.

An athlete can manually edit any workout and place a proxy score based off of RPE using a conversion tool such as this. Once a manually edited TSS score is entered it appears in the log as *TSS. Any triathlete who finds rTSS or sTSS bogus can simply edit the workouts and put a *TSS based on their RPE.

Seems like a good concept from Friel. If you do not like his conversion, just create what seems to feel right for you. Probably should be okay as long as the same conversion is always used for a true apples to apples comparison.

http://www.trainingbible.com/.../estimating-tss.html

"Session RPE" is not Friel's idea, it is Carl Foster's.

Moreover, it has been what I have been suggesting to/for triathletes for years and years (in keeping with the PPP, "If it feels hard, it is hard.").

Yes, Foster did propose an RPE based system, but his work is long before TSS (of any variety) ever existed. As far as I know, Foster did not offer a suggested conversion to a number that would plug into the PMC. I brought up Friel's blog because it is more specific to the TSS style numbers in the PMC.

There is no need to convert. Just enter Foster's session RPE score as a substitute for TSS (or rTSS, etc.) for every workout.

This is actual training of biathlon athletes before the 02 Olympics.
Yes athletes in this sample won gold medals.

If you only show data from elite XC skiing (which you are doing repeatedly), there is no indication or justification that these data are pertinent to anything other than elite XC skiing.

Really? Why?

Wouldn't a solution to the middle graph just be to space out the mediumly hard days a little more so that you were stressing the body but getting more recovery.

this is precisely why i've largely* abandoned any tracking of stress. SBR are but three small variables swimming in a stew of other stresses that no PMC would be able to quantify.


*still track with pros and amateurs with minimal extraneous other/life stressors

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

The medium hard/gray zone days are what I term triathlon specificity. Pretty much any race distance (non drafting) sprint to Ironman intensities are included in that span. It's stuff that has to be addressed. What the issue is is when that's the only type of training the subject ever finds themselves in. Sure spacing it out would give you more recovery time but oscillating between 1 and 3 provides a greater stimulus in the same time frame so why bother SST-ing it and then taking a lot of time off?

---

36 kona qualifiers 2006-'23 - 3 Kona Podiums - 4 OA IM AG wins - 5 IM AG wins - 18 70.3 AG wins
I ka nana no a 'ike -- by observing, one learns | Kulia i ka nu'u -- strive for excellence
Garmin Glycogen Use App | Garmin Fat Use App

really depends on the goal and time of year,

You could space it out and achieve high success or you could modulate load depending on how you measure and achieve success.

IE "better" or more spaced out recovery or a static, or spread out response to training load may or may not be the best option all the time.

Certain measurable outcomes are basically where the rubber hits the road in training, training stress, response and all the other things you do outside of training…. find those ;-)

Maurice

One nice thing about tracking RPE alone though is that you can do more things with it than if you just replace specific TSS values with TSS estimates based on RPE:
- you can then choose to (or not) multiply it by time. A 2/10 90min ride is not the same as a 2/10 4hr ride. There's an argument to be made both ways; that is, I think there's a reason to incorporate time into the RPE value and also to keep it separate. But if you want to spin out as being separate from time, this allows you to do that and to then make use of the fact that you are also recording time for the session.
- you can then see where RPE and TSS diverge and converge, which I think goes a long way towards being able to make better use of TSS.
- eventually, you could use RPE as a "correction" factor of sorts for TSS. Knowing both RPE and TSS also should help to improve the TSS model in the future...
- lastly, it's simpler. One of the best parts of RPE is, "quick, out of 10, how hard was that?" When you need to start doing multiplication, that makes it more complicated, which also makes it more likely that athletes will overthink the value they assign...

So, yes, you can currently use TSS as a proxy for RPE. But I think there are more reasons than not to keep RPE separate and to just allow you to enter it.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Dr Coggan, you have done some great work! With regard to the modeling of training load you are a trailblazer along with Bannister and Foster. Your introduction of the Performance Manager Chart is an innovation that athletes world wide have benefited from. Thank you.

You are correct, yes RPE based scores based on Foster's work can be used in the TMC. I am sure that as long as the methodolgy is held constant a valid apples to apples analysis will work. I'm sure that TRIMPS can work too.

Many curious athletes are reading articles, blogs and forum posts to learn the nuances of tracking training load. Of course caution should be used reagarding context and some authors are more authoritative than others. McGregor, Skiba, Sousa, Rapp, Ale Martinez, Friel among countless athletes and coaches have pointed out pros/cons and some real world perspective. Curious athletes who are utilizing this information typically see values expressed in the typical values of your TSS system. I haven't seen many recent articles apply Foster or Bannister's respective methods in the context of real world day to day applications.

The chart in the Friel blog that I linked earlier is in no way a trailblazing concept such as the collective work of you Foster and Bannister. It is a simple nuance in the real world application of this concept of training load. The benefit of this particular chart is that it allows for use of RPE and will give numerical values similar to thise expressed in these various sources of information giving real world examples to the applications of your principles. Athletes who have never seen that Friel article/chart intuitively do something similar. For example an athlete who may ride a steady aerobic 1 hour ride on a spin bike might theoretically say "that felt like 50 tss on my road bike" and then manually make an entry. The Friel chart just gives a little more structure to such a potential scenario.

There is no perfect application of subjective and objective information. Training will always remain a delicate balance of art and science. Thankfully there are trailblazers such as yourself who pioneer such innovative concepts. It's also fortunate that there are a bunch of people in the trenches willing to share their ideas and experiences which help advance understanding through this brainstorming process.

I am assuming these guys are training around 40 hours a week? What about age groupers who can only train 10-20 hours a week? The usual answer seems to be keep the same ratios. But why not drop 10-20 hours of easy training (Edit -Weekly) and do the same or less hard training but at a higher ratio relative to easy?

Those are XC skiers from Norway over the last ~40 years. They train 600-900hrs a year, much less than triathletes.

You have a very good point. Taking what someone does in one context and directly translating to another context is potentially a bad decision. Also somewhat pointless to post a graph with no context.

In a way Nordic sking is triathlons closest sport. Classic is good for running , skating good for cycling . And they use their arms too
It's not a suprise that many cyclist train Nordic skiing in the winter and I guess even less a suprise that many triathlete do Nordic sking camps in the winter

What this is showing is the distribution of intensity levels.
Youth and junior skiers also train like this and with big success.
Other athletes like Ingrid Kristiansen followed the same structure.

I have not seen any other posting actual training here. I would like to see the distribution for other athletes. But for some reason in other sports (and countries) coaches and athletes will not share their data.

In general, if you train 5+ times a week have two intervals day mostly in zone 4 (short rest) and the rest should be easy.

My own distributions for speed power. Versus a year ago.

Covered in here: http://blog.rappstar.com/...woodlands-redux.html

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

How does 2 interval days fit into a triathlon plan? All brick workouts? Only do a hard swim every other week?

Why 7 power zones the 1st year but 8 the 2nd year? That's going to skew the distributions, no?

wait, what? Is that a typo? according to you recovery = IF < 0.55 (and I would agree)

Active Recovery<55%<68<

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

Lol, you could use that joke again from a few pages back ;-)

Actually 6 vs 8 bike. Maybe he was combining lower zones etc??

Maurice

Interesting... FWIW, the last released GoldenCheetah version allows to build a PMC based on Session RPE, the new development versions also allow to introduce the sport dependent "A" constants via a user defined metric which then could be used to build a PMC (just like any other metric like TRIMPs, TSS, etc.).

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

The training levels are based on average power, and are expressed as a percentage.

Intensity factor is based on normalized power, and is expressed as a decimal.

Due to variability in power output, the two scales are not equivalent.

Level 1 is defined as an average power of <55% of FTP, and (due to power variability) typically results in an IF of <0.75.

When attempting to compare training described using my nomenclature to, e.g., research studies specifying intensity as a percentage of VO2max (which IIRC is the context here), it is better to think in terms of IF. IOW, since on average FTP occurs at about 80% of VO2max, recovery would be roughly equivalent to less than 80% x 0.75 = 60% of VO2max. You would not expect that intensity to provide much of a stimulus for adaptation in already well-trained subjects, unless perhaps it was performed for many hours per day.

I don't know. TP is giving me that.

I generated both graphs at the same time (yesterday). And this is what I have in settings:

If somehow I accidentally had Durata zones (8 zones) in there at this time last year, would TP hold onto that? If so, that would seem to be a bug in TP...

I have WKO4, but I am basically totally useless with it. I can't figure out how to make the same graphs in it...



EDIT: I figured out how to do it in WKO4. Updated the blog. Updated graph here:

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Thanks for posting actual training. Not many are willing to do that.

And if you want to know what you are capable of, do a test.

i.e.
Testing is training.
Performance is the best predictor of performance

We need predictive models, not descriptive ones based upon a dubious metric.

Mark

I love how you quote me then turn right around and slam my contributions based on things that were thoroughly hashed over a decade ago. Not only are you late to the party, it seems that you're cut from the same cloth as good ol' Trev, i.e., you act like a spurned lover.

But anyway: while it is far from perfect, TSS is the only method of quantifying training load that has been validated based on measurement of glycogen utilization.

Wasn't aware of this, can you post a URL to the study ?

Mark

As discussed on the wattage list about 10 y ago, the data are drawn from the studies we did at UT-Austin while I was working on my PhD.

Shame, but helps to explain the very small sample size in the plot you posted.
As usual, your grand claims cannot be scrutinised.

Mark

That's a good explanation. There's also a tendency to forget it's just a relatively crude model of what's going on, and for a variety of reasons it can be a total lie.

E.g. a couple of times for 'A' races when my "PMC" told me I was at my fittest with a great "stress balance" I was utterly overtrained and worthless.

I no longer "TSS-chase." It's a tool. But not a panacea.

Even n=1 would be higher than, say, BikeScore, which you have endorsed/embraced by implementing in GoldenCheetahR. IOW, it seems that you're rather two-faced about what does/does not meet your standards.

In any case, the data are what they are, with the only thing one needs to know in addition to the graph and the information in the peer-reviewed papers is that I estimated FTP for each subject based on Coyle's definition of LT and his 1991 Med Sci Sports Exerc paper.

"In god we trust - everyone else must bring data." - W. Edwards Deming

TSB does NOT equal fitness. IOW, you only have yourself to blame for being "worthless."

I never claimed it "equalled fitness."

My claim is that it's commonly advertised that a positive TSB is consistent with a "readiness to race." Not necessarily in isolation, but as a general rule.

E.g. from Trainingpeaks:

"At a certain TSB, your fitness and your fatigue will be in balance so that you are in peak “form” for your event."

That is not a scientifically accurate statement, in my opinion.

If it were worded, "You may find that, under certain conditions, TSB sometimes correlates with peak form. But TSB should never be used in isolation as a reliable indicator of form." Or something to that effect.

Rather than as a predictor, I see value in PMC as a rear view mirror. That assumes the athlete or a trusted advisor knows what to look for in and out of sport.

There are so many issues or circumstances that influence 'stress' outside of training stress.

Uh huh:

"a couple of times for 'A' races when my "PMC" told me I was at my fittest "

Recall what I said about always consulting the original source...

Except, of course, and as usual, you are the one making grand claims of "validation" that turn out to be you marking your own homework with data we cannot see.

I make no claims or endorse any measure, in fact, I've called out the PMC stuff as bullshit on many, many occasions.

It still remains that TSS is inflated by freewheeling and is not additive due to a dimensionality error in the formulation. For many types of rides (e.g hilly/group rides, stops/traffic signs) this makes TSS unusable as a reasonable measure of stress. This is a provable fact (hence my original post and link to the proof).

That you never mention these facts, although they came to light 10 years ago, shows you have no interest in the pursuit of truth, or even validation of your ideas, its just self promotion.

Mark

??

The subjects, methods, and group mean data can be found in the original published papers, and the individual data are shown in the plot above. That's more than a peer reviewer would typically see, and as such more than necessary for publication in a scientific journal if that interested me. I know this because I have both reviewed and published my share of scientific papers.

However, since my efforts apparently don't live up to your standards (although it's tough to figure out what those are, since you're quite hypocritical about what you embrace/criticize), just let me know what additional data you'd like to see and I'd be happy to provide it. (Note, however, that privacy laws prohibit disclosure of certain information.)

As for your criticisms of TSS/the PMC that I snipped, you haven't added anything new to the conversation, nor have you (or anyone else) ever offered a demonstrably better/more viable alternative. Perhaps if you did it would be easier to believe that you really wanted to help people, versus simply denigrating the efforts of others.

Cool.

Details of the cohort, the protocols used, how parameters were estimated and the data and results would be a great start.

I could ask for lots of info, but the basics will do:

• how your protocols accounted for intermittent and steady work across a range of intensities and durations, including periods of recovery and idle time (which is critical given the known problems related to TSS)

• how you calibrated and accounted for measurement variation with such a small sample size, and of course how you controlled the rate at which participants ingested glucose without disturbing measurement

• how you established accurate FTP estimates when it hadn't been invented yet, nor the protocols to establish it. Perhaps you used your time machine (?)

Mark

See our published papers.


All studies have limitations. As I said, however, even n=1 would be more validation than has been done with, say, BikeScore. Yet, I don't see you getting all bent-out-of-shape over it - seems rather hypocritical of you, no?


These data are from the placebo trials.


People knew what FTP was before the term was ever coined - that's in large part why there's always been a big disconnect between the scientific and sporting communities as to the meaning of word threshold, and why the notion of FTP gained so much traction. But, to answer your question: as I described on the wattage list a decade or so ago, I used Coyle's subsequent "hour-of-power study" to come up with a conversion from his LT to my FTP (not that it changes the correlation of TSS with glycogen utilization any).

I thought you were being genuine in offering to share more data, so took time to consider the important questions to ask. You then flip me off with a non-answer and rehash of your insults from above.

I should have known better.

Mark

??

I answered all of your questions.


Just calling 'em as many see 'em.


You'll never learn - as I said before, you and Trev seem to be cut from the same cloth.

You responded to them, not answered. It really isn't the same thing.
As ever you resort to hurling insults. That indicates you can't answer.

Mark

Let's review, shall we?

1. You asked for details about the subjects, protocols, methods, and results. I told you where to find them. However, now that I'm at work and have ready access and since you seem to being having trouble locating them, here they are:

https://www.academia.edu/...siol_1986_61_165-172

https://www.academia.edu/...ol_1988_64_2622-2630

2. You asked, in essence, about the range of conditions under which the relationship between TSS and glycogen utilization had been evaluated. I acknowledged the fact that only steady-state exercise was performed is a limitation.

3. You asked how I accounted for carbohydrate ingestion. I told you that I used data from only the placebo trials.

4. You asked, in essence, how I knew the subjects' FTP values. I told you that I estimated them from their LT data, by multiplying by the average ratio of hour power to LT power in Colye's 1991 study. (I also pointed out that this does not alter the magnitude of the correlation between TSS and glycogen use.)

i just finished reading dr coggan book (training and racing with a PM - italian translation)
and i've read this thread (and other) with interest.


i promise i'll read the book other 5 times but at the moment there is something i really don't understand.


in the book in the triathlete chapter is suggested to have 3 PMC graph (1 for bike, 1 for run e 1 combined), friel in his blog suggests to only combine ACL graph and here (and in other thread) dr coggan suggest to NOT combine PMC for bike and run.


but even if i don't combine the charts does the bike PMC still have sense??? i suppose an hard run workout afflicts heavly the bike workout of the next day (maybe it does not afflict so heavly a following swim workout due to different muscles involved ).


i don't want to use CTL/TSS/ATL/TSB to manage the single session (e.g. how many FTP interval i have to do today to reach 150tss) but to manage the training load during weeks/months for at least 2 of the 3 sports.


sure there are a lot of things i don't understand (as u can read i don't speak well your language)


thank you

just an UP to the thread